alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, William B. Horne, Chief Financial Officer of Digicorp, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Digicorp for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2005;


2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the  circumstances  under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.  Based  on my  knowledge,  the  financial  statements,  and  other  financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition,  results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining  disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:

      (a)  designed  such  disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures to be designed  under our  supervision,  to
ensure that material  information  relating to the small business issuer is made
known to us by others,  particularly  during the period in which this  report is
being prepared;

      (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's  disclosure
controls and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure  controls and procedures,  as of the end of the period covered by
this report based on such evaluation; and

      (c)  disclosed  in this report any change in the small  business  issuer's
internal  control  over  financial  reporting  that  occurred  during  the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based  on  our  most  recent  evaluation  of  internal  control  over  financial
reporting,  to the small business  issuer's  auditors and the audit committee of
the small  business  issuer's  board of  directors  (or persons  performing  the
equivalent functions);

      (a) all significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal  control over  financial  reporting  which are  reasonably
likely to  adversely  affect  the small  business  issuer's  ability  to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

      (b) any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
employees who have a significant  role in the small business  issuer's  internal
control over financial reporting.


February 23, 2007



/s/ William B. Horne
-------------------------------
William B. Horne
Chief Financial Officer
# ORIGINAL

INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0183 

### AUG 3 0 n2 IN THE MATTER OF: S.L., A Youth in Need ofCare. Bowctn Greenwood Clerk of Supr rne Court State nf tvinntana ORDER

Counsel for the appellant mother of S.L. filed a motion and brief asking to be allowed towithdraw fromthis appeal on groundsthat counsel hasbeen unableto find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The mother was granted time to file a response, but no response was filed. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA, and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could be raised in the mother's appeal in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDEREDthat this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed toprovide copies ofthis Order toall counsel ofrecord and to the appellant mother personally. DATEDthis day ofAugust, 2022.
ChiefJustice 08/30/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0183eSli AI JILIL



### . ;,.....,... .

Justi 4. es

2
#### Agness Rebecca FIELDS, Appellant, v. Robert Carl FIELDS, Appellee.

No. 4473.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Feb. 17, 1966.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 1966.

L. B. Dawson, Corsicana, for appellant.

Kenneth A. Douglas, Corsicana, for ap-pellee.

McDONALD, Chief Justice.

This is a divorce case. Robert Carl Fields sued Agness Rebecca Fields, alleging they had lived apart without cohabitation for more than 7 years. The proof showed that plaintiff and defendant separated in October, 1957; that on May 27, 1964 plaintiff married a party named Gladys Hughes, and had lived with her as man and wife since. The trial court granted the divorce on October 15, 1965. Appellant appeals, contending the trial court erred in granting the divorce because: 1) plaintiff was not *lawfully*living apart from defendant for a part of the 7-year period required by the statute (in that he unlawfully attempted remarriage) ; 2) plaintiff committed an illegal act (attempted remarriage) which prevented defendant from living with plaintiff.

Article 4629, Subdivision (4), Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. provides that a divorce may be decreed where a husband and wife have lived apart without cohabitation for as long as 7 years.

Defendant says that plaintiff’s cause of action is based at least in part upon his own unlawful act of attempted or bigamous remarriage during the 7-year period, thus preventing defendant from living with him, and for this reason plaintiff’s action for divorce should be denied.

*959Subdivision (4) of Article 4629 is construed to require the spouse to live apart without cohabitation for 7 years; and the cause of the separation, and subsequent conduct, of the one seeking divorce are not proper subjects of inquiry. Robertson v. Robertson, CCA (n. w. h.), 217 S.W.2d 132; Spray v. Spray, CCA, W/E Dismissed, 368 S.W.2d 159.

In the instant case the proof showed that plaintiff and defendant lived apart without cohabitation for 7 years. Under the cited cases, the fact that plaintiff was guilty of bigamy during the 7-year period does not preclude the granting of plaintiff’s divorce under such subdivision.

Defendant’s contentions are overruled.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31(b)**
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) and 15d-14(a)**
I, Steven P. Kovac, certify that:
 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Interphase Corporation(the “Company”);
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary tomake the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered bythis report;
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company andwe have:
   (a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the Company, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
   (b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
   (c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recentfiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting;and
 5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the Audit Committee of the Company’s Boardof Directors:
   (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarizeand report financial information; and
   (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.     Date: March 23, 2004 Signature: /s/ Steven P. Kovac      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit








Exhibit 10(g).1




AMENDED SCHEDULE OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS WHO HAVE EXECUTED A POST-TERMINATION AGREEMENT AND COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE IN THE FORM FILED AS EXHIBIT 10(p) TO THE ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K OF THE COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 2011 (this "Amended Schedule")


This Amended Schedule amends the Schedule of Executive Officers Who Have Executed a Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete that followed the form of Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete originally filed by Walmart Inc. (formerly Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) as Exhibit 10(p) to its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2011, as filed on March 30, 2011 (the "Form Agreement"). This Amended Schedule is included pursuant to Instruction 2 of Item 601(a) of Regulation S-K for the purpose of setting forth the details in which the specific agreements executed in the form of the Form Agreement differ from the Form Agreement, in particular to set forth the persons who, with Walmart Inc., were parties to Post-Termination Agreements and Covenants Not to Compete in such form as of January 31, 2019.


	
					
	Executive Officer Who is a Party to such a Post-Termination Agreement and Covenant Not to Compete
	 
	Date of Agreement
	 
	Value of Restricted Stock Award Granted in Connection with Agreement

	Daniel J. Bartlett
	 
	May 16, 2013
	 
	Not Applicable

	M. Brett Biggs
	 
	September 21, 2010
	 
	$500,000

	Rachel L. Brand
	 
	February 21, 2018
	 
	Not Applicable

	David Chojnowski
	 
	November 16, 2016
	 
	Not Applicable

	Gregory Foran
	 
	July 23, 2014
	 
	Not Applicable

	John R. Furner
	 
	May 7, 2011
	 
	Not Applicable

	C. Douglas McMillon
	 
	January 19, 2010
	 
	$2,000,000

	Jacqueline P. Canney
	 
	June 26, 2015
	 
	Not Applicable

	Judith McKenna
	 
	May 18, 2015
	 
	Not Applicable
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 @ROAD, INC. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of @Road, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Krish Panu, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company. August 9, 2004 /s/ Krish Panu Krish Panu
Chief Executive Officer
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION  906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
 February 29, 2008

/s/ Craig A. ToomanCraig A. ToomanExecutive Vice President,
Finance and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
C OURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

OSCAR L. SHAW

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 3 21

- C R

Appeal from the

243 rd District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2 0160D0 2955 )

O R D E R

The record before us does not contain the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal. T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2), (d). The trial court is ordered to prepare and file with

the trial court clerk within thirty days from the date of this order a certification of the defendant’s

right of appeal as required by T EX .R.A PP .P. 25.2(a)(2) and 25.2 (d). The trial court clerk shall

prepare a supplemental clerk’s record containing the certification and file it with this Court no

later than March 24 , 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7 th day of February , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit 21


Subsidiaries of the Registrant
------------------------------

     The Registrant,  E-Z-EM, Inc., is a Delaware corporation.  The subsidiaries
of the  Registrant  included in the  consolidated  financial  statements  are as
follows:

                                                                Incorporated
                                                                ------------

        AngioDynamics, Inc.                                       Delaware

        AngioDynamics Ltd.                                        Ireland

        E-Z-EM Belgium B.V.B.A.                                   Belgium

        E-Z-EM Canada Inc.                                         Canada

        E-Z-EM Caribe, Inc.                                       Delaware

        E-Z-EM International, Inc.                                Barbados

        E-Z-EM Ltd.                                               England

        E-Z-EM Nederland B.V.                                     Holland

        Enteric Products, Inc.                                    Delaware

        Leocor, Inc.                                              Delaware

        Toho Kagaku Kenkyusho Co., Ltd.                            Japan

        All subsidiaries of the Registrant are wholly-owned.


                                      -78-
<PAGE>

                                                              June 21, 2004

EarlyBirdCapital, Inc.
600 Third Avenue
33rd Floor
New York, New York 10016

                  Re: Rand Acquisition Corporation
                      ----------------------------

Gentlemen:

                  This letter will confirm the agreement of the undersigned to
purchase warrants ("Warrants") of Rand Acquisition Corporation ("Company")
included in the units ("Units") being sold in the Company's initial public
offering ("IPO") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. Each Unit is
comprised of one share of Common Stock and two Warrants. The shares of Common
Stock and Warrants will not be separately tradeable until 90 days after the
effective date of the Company's IPO unless EarlyBirdCapital, Inc. ("EBC")
informs the Company of its decision to allow earlier separate trading.

                  The undersigned agrees that this letter agreement constitutes
an irrevocable order for EBC to purchase for the undersigned's account within
the forty-trading day period commencing on the date separate trading of the
Warrants commences ("Separation Date") up to ___________ Warrants at market
prices not to exceed $0.70 per Warrant ("Maximum Warrant Purchase"). EBC (or
such other broker dealer(s) as EBC may assign the order to) agrees to fill such
order in such amounts and at such times as it may determine, in its sole
discretion, during the forty-trading day period commencing on the Separation
Date. EBC further agrees that it will not charge the undersigned any fees and/or
commissions with respect to such purchase obligation.

                  The undersigned may notify EBC that all or part of the Maximum
Warrant Purchase will be made by an affiliate of the undersigned (or another
person or entity introduced to EBC by the undersigned (a "Designee")) who (or
which) has an account at EBC and, in such event, EBC will make such purchase on
behalf of said affiliate or Designee; provided, however, that the undersigned
hereby agrees to make payment of the purchase price of such purchase in the
event that the affiliate or Designee fails to make such payment.

                  The undersigned agrees that neither he nor any affiliate or
Designee shall sell or transfer the Warrants until after the consummation of a
merger, capital stock exchange, asset acquisition or other similar business
combination with an operating business and acknowledges that, at the option of
EBC, the certificates for such Warrants shall contain a legend indicating such
restriction on transferability.

                                                     Very truly yours,



                                                     ------------------
Exhibit 32.1



Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, filed herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



Written Statement by Chief
Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in that report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies as of that date.



|                                                                    
|--------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL D.
LOCKHART                                          
|Michael D. Lockhart Chief Executive Officer Armstrong Holdings, Inc.



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL D.
LOCKHART                                                                
|Michael D. Lockhart Chief Executive Officer and President Armstrong World Industries, Inc.



Dated: August 8, 2003



A signed original of this written statement
required by Section 906 has been provided to the Companies and will be retained by the Companies and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Augustine ACOSTA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27892.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1955.

Thomas L. Clinton, Lubbock, for appellant.

Leon B.. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of beer in a dry area, with a prior conviction for an offense of like character alleged for enhancement; the punishment, 18 months in jail and a fine of $500.

Liquor Control Inspector Wilson and, City Policeman Foster testified that they drove up to a residence in the Latin-American section of the' City Of Lubbock on the night in question and a girl about 14 years old walked up to their automobile. They told her they wanted <two quarts of beer; *765she turned to the appellant who was at the-front door, and .he instructed the girl that “they are all. right”; whereupon she instructed them to drive into the driveway. The appellant went around the back of the house and returned with two quarts of Schlitz beer, which he sold them for two dollars. Wilson notified the appellant that he was under arrest, but the appellant fled. Wilson caught the appellant as he entered the lighted, kitchen and- pulled him out.. The girl and another Latin-American worn-. an pulled the officers loose from the appellant, and he finally effected his escape. Appellant was arrested some three 'weeks later. '

Appellant, his wife and their relatives and friends testified that it was one Per-fecto Hernandez -who made the sale of beer to and escaped from the officers'arid that the appellant was in Midland on the day in question.

' The jury resolved the issue of alibi against the appellant, and the evidence supports their verdict. *> ■'*

The sole question presented for review is the failure of the trial court to grant appellant’s motion for new trial based upon alleged newly discovered evidence. Appellant’s motion for new trial was sworn to by the appellant bfefore the attorney who represented him on the trial and on the' motion and cannot be considered. Ferguson v.' State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 169, 261 S.W.2d 721, 722.

Wé observe, however, that tile court qualified the bill by certifying that no subpoena was issued for the missing witness Perfecto Hernandez prior to the trial, that no motion for. continuance was' filed prior to the trial setting forth the absence of. the witness, and that at the trial several witnesses testified that it was Per-fecto Hernandez instead of the appellant who made, the sale involvecl in this prosecution.- There was a complete lack of diligence shown. Gephart y. State,, 157 Tex. Cr.R. 414, 249 S.W.2d 612, is authority fpr , the rule that an accused cannot hold back a witness to insure a nevy trial if the ¡verdict goes against him.

Finding no reversible error, the judg-' ment of the trial court is affirmed.